Antiplatelet therapy with or without anticoagulant therapy for lower extremity peripheral artery disease: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To identify randomized controlled trials that compared antiplatelet monotherapy to combination antiplatelet plus anticoagulant therapy and evaluated major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or major adverse limb events (MALE), death, or bleeding in patients with lower extremity peripheral artery disease (PAD). SUMMARY: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases revealed 5 trials. Two trials consisted of patients with stable PAD, while 3 trials examined patients with PAD post revascularization. Antiplatelet therapy was mostly aspirin (81-325 mg daily), and anticoagulation included rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily or warfarin. Duration of follow-up ranged from 12 to 38 months. Two trials had low risk of bias, whereas 3 trials had high/unclear risk of bias. For patients with stable PAD, one trial showed that use of warfarin (or acenocoumarol) with antiplatelet therapy did not reduce MACE, MALE, or cardiovascular or all-cause death but increased the risk of life-threatening bleeding. A second trial demonstrated that low-dose rivaroxaban plus antiplatelet therapy lowered the risk of MACE and MALE, with no effect in preventing cardiovascular or all-cause death, but increased the risk of major bleeding. For patients with PAD post revascularization receiving warfarin and antiplatelet therapy, 2 trials showed no benefit in MACE or MALE but increased or similar rates of all-cause death and major bleeding. In a third trial, low-dose rivaroxaban plus aspirin reduced occurrence of the composite of MACE and MALE but increased major bleeding, with no effect on cardiovascular or all-cause death. CONCLUSION: Dual-pathway inhibition with low-dose rivaroxaban and aspirin reduced MACE and MALE in patients with stable or revascularized PAD, but net clinical benefit is questionable.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".